sunnygirl wrote:Waitingl list for apartment? Sounds crazy. I have been fed up with being on the WLs(I have a bunch of WLs). It seems that it will be difficult for me to find a roommate, for people want to save the money.......Do you know anything about Courtland Park and Courtland Tower? Various comments for them. Both owned by Dittmar.

A friend lives in Courtland Towers and has never complained. I know nothing about Courtland Park.

Anywhere in Cherrydale will be cheaper than Ballston. Cherrydale is the neighborhood more or less directly northwest of the law school. There are a cluster of apartments on Lee Highway where it splits from Old Dominion.

Westover is another decent option, and even cheaper than Cherrydale. Westover is roughly the area around Washington Blvd and Patrick Henry Dr, about two miles west of the law school. It's about halfway in between Ballston and East Falls Church metros.

+1I live in Westover, and I love it. Very easy access to the campus via bus or bike, and it's a really nice neighborhood. You can find a 1BR for under 1000. There are also some apartments right between the Clarendon and Courthouse stops, a little less than a mile from each, and they have 1BR for about 1000, and studios for 800. They aren't super nice, and they are right off of I66, but hey, if you want to live cheap, it's an option. I think one of the complexes is called Ancient Oak Apartments.

So, I was accepted to GMU a few weeks ago, but I can't decide if I should go there . . . from what I've heard the facilities are less than desirable. Any thoughts? Also ... since it's in DC do students from Georgetown and GWU have a better chance at getting placements?

Gymnast0206 wrote:So, I was accepted to GMU a few weeks ago, but I can't decide if I should go there . . . from what I've heard the facilities are less than desirable. Any thoughts? Also ... since it's in DC do students from Georgetown and GWU have a better chance at getting placements?

While I bolded the question, the answer "yes" should be bolded as well.

Gymnast0206 wrote:So, I was accepted to GMU a few weeks ago, but I can't decide if I should go there . . . from what I've heard the facilities are less than desirable. Any thoughts? Also ... since it's in DC do students from Georgetown and GWU have a better chance at getting placements?

Gymnast0206 wrote:So, I was accepted to GMU a few weeks ago, but I can't decide if I should go there . . . from what I've heard the facilities are less than desirable. Any thoughts? Also ... since it's in DC do students from Georgetown and GWU have a better chance at getting placements?

Gymnast0206 wrote:So, I was accepted to GMU a few weeks ago, but I can't decide if I should go there . . . from what I've heard the facilities are less than desirable. Any thoughts? Also ... since it's in DC do students from Georgetown and GWU have a better chance at getting placements?

Placements where?

And the current facility is a renovated department store. True story.

Placements at the Capitol, Governmental Positions, etc.

And, seriously?!

For placements in the Fed gov't, GMU is pretty competitive from everything I've heard. GW and Georgetown are way better for BigLaw placements as Renton said.

And yes, though I can't remember which department store it used to be. Find someone who attended in the early 80's (when Mason bought the space) and they might be able to tell you.

Mason Law was originally in the old department store before moving into the current building. The School of Public Policy is in the old department store right now, but I think will be moving into the brand new building whenever that opens.

ewflay wrote:Mason Law was originally in the old department store before moving into the current building. The School of Public Policy is in the old department store right now, but I think will be moving into the brand new building whenever that opens.

Do we have any good details on the new building? Any decent rumors worth mentioning?

I think the School of Public Policy will occupy the bulk of the building, but the Law School will use some of the space. Regardless, it will be a much better use of the land than the small, potholed parking lot that was there not too long ago.

I, too, remember them saying that. But I also remember SPP folks claiming it was mostly theirs. And Mason's website seems to award the split decision to SPP: http://news.gmu.edu/articles/1799

"The building will primarily house the School of Public Policy. Additional office space has been allocated to the School of Law, as well as to Facilities Management, Health Services and University Life."

Don't worry, if all of us who were accepted marticulates to GMU, we'll form a mob and storm the building and chase out all the public policy folks. I'll bring the pitch fork and you bring the torch. Someone bring the tar and feather.

BigFatPanda wrote:Don't worry, if all of us who were accepted marticulates to GMU, we'll form a mob and storm the building and chase out all the public policy folks. I'll bring the pitch fork and you bring the torch. Someone bring the tar and feather.

Just got an employment stats e-mail from mason for c/o 2009. Very unimpressive. It's all based on a 65% reporting rate. This is monumentally low, and even leaving out 35% of the class, the reported data leaves a lot to be desired.

tesoro wrote:Just got an employment stats e-mail from mason for c/o 2009. Very unimpressive. It's all based on a 65% reporting rate. This is monumentally low, and even leaving out 35% of the class, the reported data leaves a lot to be desired.

tesoro wrote:Just got an employment stats e-mail from mason for c/o 2009. Very unimpressive. It's all based on a 65% reporting rate. This is monumentally low, and even leaving out 35% of the class, the reported data leaves a lot to be desired.

Or it can be assistant professor positions for UG. I'm not sure what economics professors make, but this would be accurate for social sciences. I definitely doubt GMU grads are teaching at law schools - especially considering that number.

tesoro wrote:Just got an employment stats e-mail from mason for c/o 2009. Very unimpressive. It's all based on a 65% reporting rate. This is monumentally low, and even leaving out 35% of the class, the reported data leaves a lot to be desired.

You are freaking negative, 65% reporting is much better than many other 'higher ranked' schools can show. People think that employment statistics are everything and the end all of how people should make their law school decisions. Go to the school that you think you will be happy at, not the one that you will be too busy worrying about getting hired that you actually end up doing shitty during your 1L.

If I go to GMU I too will be playing full sticker out of state, but the fact that the purchasing power I will have over my lifetime will far exceed $180,000 on 1.5% loans doesn't make me lose sleep at night. $180,000, with a $160,000 salary can be paid back in only a few years, five to seven if you land the average salary, big deal! If you put in the work, statistics just become something that lazy people bitch about.

tesoro wrote:Just got an employment stats e-mail from mason for c/o 2009. Very unimpressive. It's all based on a 65% reporting rate. This is monumentally low, and even leaving out 35% of the class, the reported data leaves a lot to be desired.

You are freaking negative, 65% reporting is much better than many other 'higher ranked' schools can show. People think that employment statistics are everything and the end all of how people should make their law school decisions. Go to the school that you think you will be happy at, not the one that you will be too busy worrying about getting hired that you actually end up doing shitty during your 1L.

If I go to GMU I too will be playing full sticker out of state, but the fact that the purchasing power I will have over my lifetime will far exceed $180,000 on 1.5% loans doesn't make me lose sleep at night. $180,000, with a $160,000 salary can be paid back in only a few years, five to seven if you land the average salary, big deal! If you put in the work, statistics just become something that lazy people bitch about.

I'm going to be a bit harsh because I'm a bit drunk. But this is completely retarded.

"People think that employment statistics are everything and the end all of how people should make their law school decisions"... We're going to a professional school to be professionals; read: employment. What's a better reason to go to law school than to find a good job? That's the entire reason to go to law school -> to find a job. Thus, the better job (whatever your standard of a good job is), the better. "Go to the school that you think you will be happy at". Seriously? Being happy is important, of course. But what does this even mean? That someone should go to a school which will be more fun for three years than worrying about what they're going to be able to do for the rest of their life? Does it really seem like a smart idea to go to a school that provides dim employment prospects because the place will make me happy? I bet I'd love Pepperdine and Malibu for a few years but not the overwhelming debt and slim job prospects that follow.

The part of this post that makes me think that you're either stupid or a flame is the bit about not losing sleep at night over nearly 200K of debt. What makes you think that you're going to get this 160K job that you referenced? Do you have any clue in what % of the class that you have to finish in to get that? Do you know how few people at GMU will end up with a job in that bracket?

What sort of purchasing power do you think that you will have over your lifetime to pay back that debt? If 200K over a lifetime was really that easy to raise, we'd all have Ferrari's and wear diamond encrusted rolexes. But we don't have these luxury items. Why? Because 200K is really fucking hard to save up. You're making it seem like you can crack your piggy bank over the course of 20 years and 200K will spill out. If 200K doesn't scare you, that's truly absurd.

In sum, poo pooing job prospects in lieu of a place "that will make you happy" because 200 thousand dollars really is nothing is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Edit: And how can nearly 200K be paid back in five to seven years of average salary. Say "average" falls anywhere between, generously, 60-75K/year. How much of that do you think is spent on housing, food, day-to-day, gas, etc? Especially if you're lucky enough to have a family. My guess is that you'll struggle to do it much cheaper than 50K/year, if that, in the DC area. So, you'll be living as cheap as you can to pay back 10K year over the course of 20 years. Sound fun? Does this sound negative? Well it is the REALITY for a lot of grads. Or you can just paint that as negative. Do all GMU grads at sticker suffer this reality. Of course, not. But don't just assume that you'll be fine because... Well, whatever you want to tell yourself.

tesoro wrote:Just got an employment stats e-mail from mason for c/o 2009. Very unimpressive. It's all based on a 65% reporting rate. This is monumentally low, and even leaving out 35% of the class, the reported data leaves a lot to be desired.

Or it can be assistant professor positions for UG. I'm not sure what economics professors make, but this would be accurate for social sciences. I definitely doubt GMU grads are teaching at law schools - especially considering that number.

"The following information is based on data from surveys received from every 2009 graduate and from follow-up contact conducted by the Career, Academic and Alumni Services Office from May 2009 through February 2010. Every graduate is required to complete a survey as a condition of graduation."

Translation: Every, as in all, students that graduated in 2009 have rendered a report on their employment status. According to the reports reports, 99% of all 2009 grads have a job.

Translation: Only 65% of the graduates' salaries were used to create these employment statistics in keeping with high medians and averages.

What does it all mean?

99% of Mason grads have jobs. However, the median and average salaries are only based on 65% of all salaries. Therefore, one can graduate from Mason and earn the average private sector salary, but one should note, that the other 35% not reporting a salary may have salaries well below the average.

I think the stats are impressive for a near tier II school during a deleveraging recession. Not to mention, D.C. has the second lowest unemployment rate in the nation, Arlington County has the first lowest. If you go to Mason, chances are you will get a decent job. If your scores permit you to go to a school with better placement stats than Mason, go.

"The following information is based on data from surveys received from every 2009 graduate and from follow-up contact conducted by the Career, Academic and Alumni Services Office from May 2009 through February 2010. Every graduate is required to complete a survey as a condition of graduation."

Translation: Every, as in all, students that graduated in 2009 have rendered a report on their employment status. According to the reports reports, 99% of all 2009 grads have a job.

Translation: Only 65% of the graduates' salaries were used to create these employment statistics in keeping with high medians and averages.

What does it all mean?

99% of Mason grads have jobs. However, the median and average salaries are only based on 65% of all salaries. Therefore, one can graduate from Mason and earn the average private sector salary, but one should note, that the other 35% not reporting a salary may have salaries well below the average.

I think the stats are impressive for a near tier II school during a deleveraging recession. Not to mention, D.C. has the second lowest unemployment rate in the nation, Arlington County has the first lowest. If you go to Mason, chances are you will get a decent job. If your scores permit you to go to a school with better placement stats than Mason, go.

Do you think that adding in the employment data for the remaining 34% of students would raise, or lower their median reported salaries? You just don't leave out a block of data that large unless you're hiding something enormous.

34% of students is a larger block of data than ANY reported sector of data. Students overwhelmingly went to private practice. In fact, 42% of the 65% reporting went into private practice. That's only 27.3% of the class. More people are not reporting than are going into private practice. I can't think of any way to better portray the absurdity of this.

Beyond that, we have no indication of how many are at smaller or larger firms. The way the data has been manipulated, there may be as few as THREE students at large firms, and the remaining 26.8% of the class at firms are earning a median of $62,500 at smaller ones. The shortfalls of the data are IMMENSE, and are grossly (and intentionally) misleading and uninformative.

And guess what? We have no way of knowing.

I'm not sure what better schools you're referring to have worse data, but even broaching T30 I have seen 92%+ reporting rates, including median, average, breakdown in private practice by firm size, associated salary and % of students in each size firm, and even the class broken down by percentage for when their start dates are. I wasn't aware the dropoff was this sharp, especially in what you allege to be the most employed cities in the country.

texasforever wrote:

tesoro wrote:Just got an employment stats e-mail from mason for c/o 2009. Very unimpressive. It's all based on a 65% reporting rate. This is monumentally low, and even leaving out 35% of the class, the reported data leaves a lot to be desired.

You are freaking negative, 65% reporting is much better than many other 'higher ranked' schools can show. People think that employment statistics are everything and the end all of how people should make their law school decisions. Go to the school that you think you will be happy at, not the one that you will be too busy worrying about getting hired that you actually end up doing shitty during your 1L.

If I go to GMU I too will be playing full sticker out of state, but the fact that the purchasing power I will have over my lifetime will far exceed $180,000 on 1.5% loans doesn't make me lose sleep at night. $180,000, with a $160,000 salary can be paid back in only a few years, five to seven if you land the average salary, big deal! If you put in the work, statistics just become something that lazy people bitch about.

GMU is misleading you. See above, a $160,000 salary is possibly reserved for only 3 students in the class. To extrapolate any more than that from the data presented is to be misled. Also, in what world are loans at 1.5%? If that's really the case, I am going to max out my loans and throw them into high yield 4-year CDs and enjoy the interest when I graduate.